| |
Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-49 |
| |
Ottawa, 5 June 2008 |
| |
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership - Application for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services |
| |
Reference: 8640-B54-200804890 |
| |
In this Decision, the Commission approves Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership's (Bell Aliant) request for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in the exchanges of Bracebridge, Huntsville, Parry Sound and Smiths Falls, Ontario; and Plessisville, Quebec. The Commission denies Bell Aliant's request for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in the exchanges of Belle River, Gravenhurst, and Perth, Ontario. |
| |
Introduction |
1. |
The Commission received an application by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant), dated 31 March 2008, in which the company requested forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange1 services in the exchanges of Belle River, Bracebridge, Gravenhurst, Huntsville, Parry Sound, Perth, and Smiths Falls, Ontario; and Plessisville, Quebec. |
2. |
The Commission received submissions and/or data regarding Bell Aliant's application from Cogeco Cable Inc. (Cogeco), Rogers Communications Inc. (RCI), and TELUS Communications Company (TCC). The public record of this proceeding, which closed on 24 April 2008, is available on the Commission's website at www.crtc.gc.ca under "Public Proceedings." |
3. |
The Commission has assessed Bell Aliant's application based on the local forbearance test set out in Telecom Decision 2006-15, as amended by the Governor in Council's Order Varying Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, P.C. 2007-532, 4 April 2007 (modified Telecom Decision 2006-15), by examining the following: |
| |
|
| |
b) Competitor presence test
|
| |
c) Competitor quality of service (Q of S) results
|
| |
|
| |
Commission's analysis and determinations |
| |
a) Product market |
4. |
The Commission received no comments with respect to Bell Aliant's proposed list of residential local exchange services. |
5. |
The Commission notes that Bell Aliant is seeking forbearance for 20 tariffed residential local exchange services. The Commission also notes that in Telecom Decision 2008-16, it considered all of these services to be appropriate for forbearance. The list of approved services is set out in the Appendix to this Decision. |
| |
b) Competitor presence test |
6. |
The Commission notes that for the exchanges of Bracebridge, Huntsville, Parry Sound, Smiths Falls, and Plessisville, information provided by the parties confirms that there are, in addition to Bell Aliant, at least two independent facilities-based telecommunications service providers, including providers of mobile wireless services.2 Each of these service providers offers local exchange services in the market and is capable of serving at least 75 percent of the number of residential local exchange service lines that Bell Aliant is capable of serving, and at least one, in addition to Bell Aliant, is a facilities-based, fixed-line telecommunications service provider. |
7. |
Accordingly, the Commission determines that the exchanges of Bracebridge, Huntsville, Parry Sound, Smiths Falls, and Plessisville meet the competitor presence test. |
8. |
The Commission also notes that Cogeco, the only other facilities-based, fixed-line telecommunications service provider present in the exchanges of Belle River, Gravenhurst, and Perth, is not capable of serving 75 percent of the number of residential local exchange service lines that Bell Aliant is capable of serving in these three exchanges. |
9. |
Accordingly, the Commission determines that the exchanges of Belle River, Gravenhurst, and Perth do not meet the competitor presence test. |
| |
c) Competitor Q of S results |
10. |
The Commission notes that Bell Aliant submitted competitor Q of S results for the period of August 2007 to January 2008. |
11. |
The Commission has reviewed Bell Aliant's competitor Q of S results and finds that, except in a few cases where a competitor only had one data point for the six-month period, Bell Aliant has demonstrated that during this six-month period it |
| |
i) met, on average, the Q of S standard for each indicator set out in Appendix B of modified Telecom Decision 2006-15, as defined in Telecom Decision 2005-20, with respect to the services provided to competitors in its territory; and
|
| |
ii) did not consistently provide any of those competitors with services that were below those Q of S standards.
|
12. |
The Commission notes that in Telecom Decision 2007-58 it considered that where there are only a few data points during a six-month period, there is insufficient data to make a finding that a company has consistently provided below-standard Q of S. |
13. |
Accordingly, the Commission determines that Bell Aliant's competitor Q of S results meet the competitor Q of S criterion. |
| |
d) Communications plan |
14. |
The Commission has reviewed Bell Aliant's draft communications plan and is satisfied that it meets the information requirements set out in modified Telecom Decision 2006-15. The Commission approves the proposed communications plan and directs Bell Aliant to provide the resulting communications materials to its customers in both official languages where appropriate. |
| |
Conclusion |
15. |
The Commission determines that Bell Aliant's application regarding the exchanges of Bracebridge, Huntsville, Parry Sound, Smiths Falls, and Plessisville meets all the local forbearance criteria set out in modified Telecom Decision 2006-15. |
16. |
Pursuant to subsection 34(1) of the Telecommunications Act (the Act), the Commission finds as a question of fact that a determination to forbear, to the extent specified in modified Telecom Decision 2006-15, from the regulation of residential local exchange services listed in the Appendix and future services that fall within the definition of local exchange services set out in Telecom Public Notice 2005-2 as they pertain to residential customers only, in the exchanges of Bracebridge, Huntsville, Parry Sound, Smiths Falls, and Plessisville, would be consistent with the Canadian telecommunications policy objectives set out in section 7 of the Act. |
17. |
Pursuant to subsection 34(2) of the Act, the Commission finds as a question of fact that these residential local exchange services are subject to a level of competition in these exchanges sufficient to protect the interests of users of these services. |
18. |
Pursuant to subsection 34(3) of the Act, the Commission finds as a question of fact that to forbear, to the extent specified in modified Telecom Decision 2006-15, from regulating these residential local exchange services in the exchanges of Bracebridge, Huntsville, Parry Sound, Smiths Falls, and Plessisville would be unlikely to impair unduly the continuance of a competitive market for these services. |
19. |
In light of the above, the Commission approves Bell Aliant's application for forbearance from the regulation of the local exchange services listed in the Appendix and future services that fall within the definition of local exchange services set out in Telecom Public Notice 2005-2, as they pertain to residential customers only, in the exchanges of Bracebridge, Huntsville, Parry Sound, Smiths Falls, and Plessisville, subject to the powers and duties that the Commission has retained as set out in modified Telecom Decision 2006-15. This determination takes effect as of the date of this Decision. The Commission directs Bell Aliant to file for Commission approval revised tariff pages within 30 days. |
20. |
The Commission determines that Bell Aliant's application does not meet all the local forbearance criteria set out in modified Telecom Decision 2006-15 for the Belle River, Gravenhurst, and Perth exchanges. Accordingly, the Commission denies Bell Aliant's application for forbearance from the regulation of the residential local exchange services in these three exchanges. |
| |
Secretary General |
| |
Related documents |
| |
- Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership - Application for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services, Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-16, 27 February 2008
|
| |
- Forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in Fort McMurray, Alberta, Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-58, 25 July 2007
|
| |
- Forbearance from the regulation of retail local exchange services, Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, 6 April 2006, as amended by the Governor in Council's Order Varying Telecom Decision CRTC 2006-15, P.C. 2007-532, 4 April 2007
|
| |
- Forbearance from regulation of local exchange services, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2005-2, 28 April 2005
|
| |
- Finalization of quality of service rate rebate plan for competitors, Telecom Decision CRTC 2005-20, 31 March 2005
|
|
This document is available in alternative format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site: www.crtc.gc.ca |
| |
Footnotes:
In this Decision, "residential local exchange services" refers to local exchange services used by residential customers to access the public switched telephone network and any associated service charges, features, and ancillary services.
These competitors are Cogeco, RCI, and TCC. |